Pacific Ocean responsible for global warming slowdown

[westwall]

I blathered on your blather!

But since I made no comment whatsoever wrt to the things about which you posted, How have I blathered? On the other hand, in your post above, you blathered:

"the convection system that starts with the Pacific Ocean has to go over and through the NA continent when the wind blows". Pacific ocean convection does not and never has "go(ne) over to and through the NA continent. The Pacific currents are flows of water while the NA continent is a CONTINENT composed of crustal ROCK. Duh. Secondly, yes NA is about 4% of the Earth's surface, while the Pacific ocean surface represents about 32% of the Earth's surface. Get it?

Are you telling me that a Polar Vortex isn't due to the warm water in the Pacific? Hmmm, I'd think you'd know that, like it is responsible for an EL Nino. Right? Hmmm how does it do that and which way does it force the winds to blow?

You said "the convection system that starts with the Pacific Ocean", and so I naturally assumed you were referring to ocean currents. If you wanted to discuss the Polar Vortex, perhaps you should have been more specific. But more to the point, you seemed to be arguing that North America, which, by your own admission plays a larger role in global warming than some here will admit while simultaneously downplaying the role of the Pacific. And then you seem to reverse your argument. What's up with that? Perhaps you should rephrase your argument so that it actually makes sense.

But I will admit that North America does play a large role in AGW, since that is where a huge percentage of the manmade ghgs originate.

I completely agree that the Pacific ocean is the driver for the NA climate.

It isn't the only driver. In the Eastern U.S., at least, there are many drivers, not the least of which are the Gulf of Mexico, Canadian/Arctic fronts, and the Atlantic Ocean. And lets not forget lake effects (I.e., referring to how the Great lakes affects the Midwest climate).

Very good! Nowhere do you mention man as a proximal cause. Maybe you're finally learning something!

 

[jc456]

weather patterns in the NA continent mostly come from the Pacific ocean and can meet up with the Gulf air, but the collision isn't always nice, again, main force of the weather in the US comes from the Pacific. And yeah the Atlantic on the east cost might affect a few states on the coast, but again, the collision from the weather from the Pacific drives severity of patterns.

Erm, actually almost all of the moisture from the Pacific Ocean doesn't make it over the mountains of the west. Most of it falls out before it ever reaches the plains or points east. East of the rockies, the primary movers of climate are cold dry air out of Canada, and moisture from the Gulf of Mexico, the Great Lakes, and the Atlantic Ocean.

yeah go with that. That's why Oklahoma is the tornado alley right?

Tordados in Oklahoma form when cold dry air out of the Canadian Rockies collide with warm moist air from the Gulf of Mexico.

and where do you supposed that Canadian Rockie air comes from?

And BTW, that is a perfectly normal result.

The Canadian Rockies, of course. You don't actually think cold dry air originates over the Pacific Ocean, do you?

You're a laugh dude

 

[orogenicman]

But since I made no comment whatsoever wrt to the things about which you posted, How have I blathered? On the other hand, in your post above, you blathered:

"the convection system that starts with the Pacific Ocean has to go over and through the NA continent when the wind blows". Pacific ocean convection does not and never has "go(ne) over to and through the NA continent. The Pacific currents are flows of water while the NA continent is a CONTINENT composed of crustal ROCK. Duh. Secondly, yes NA is about 4% of the Earth's surface, while the Pacific ocean surface represents about 32% of the Earth's surface. Get it?

Are you telling me that a Polar Vortex isn't due to the warm water in the Pacific? Hmmm, I'd think you'd know that, like it is responsible for an EL Nino. Right? Hmmm how does it do that and which way does it force the winds to blow?

You said "the convection system that starts with the Pacific Ocean", and so I naturally assumed you were referring to ocean currents. If you wanted to discuss the Polar Vortex, perhaps you should have been more specific. But more to the point, you seemed to be arguing that North America, which, by your own admission plays a larger role in global warming than some here will admit while simultaneously downplaying the role of the Pacific. And then you seem to reverse your argument. What's up with that? Perhaps you should rephrase your argument so that it actually makes sense.

But I will admit that North America does play a large role in AGW, since that is where a huge percentage of the manmade ghgs originate.

I completely agree that the Pacific ocean is the driver for the NA climate.

It isn't the only driver. In the Eastern U.S., at least, there are many drivers, not the least of which are the Gulf of Mexico, Canadian/Arctic fronts, and the Atlantic Ocean. And lets not forget lake effects (I.e., referring to how the Great lakes affects the Midwest climate).

Very good! Nowhere do you mention man as a proximal cause. Maybe you're finally learning something!

I didn't have to because we weren't talking about that. But since you brought it up, what, exactly, if anything, do you believe that pumping 30+ billion tons of ghgs each year into the atmosphere does to the global climate system? Anything at all? Do you believe it is somehow inert despite all the evidence to the contrary?

 

[westwall]

Are you telling me that a Polar Vortex isn't due to the warm water in the Pacific? Hmmm, I'd think you'd know that, like it is responsible for an EL Nino. Right? Hmmm how does it do that and which way does it force the winds to blow?

You said "the convection system that starts with the Pacific Ocean", and so I naturally assumed you were referring to ocean currents. If you wanted to discuss the Polar Vortex, perhaps you should have been more specific. But more to the point, you seemed to be arguing that North America, which, by your own admission plays a larger role in global warming than some here will admit while simultaneously downplaying the role of the Pacific. And then you seem to reverse your argument. What's up with that? Perhaps you should rephrase your argument so that it actually makes sense.

But I will admit that North America does play a large role in AGW, since that is where a huge percentage of the manmade ghgs originate.

I completely agree that the Pacific ocean is the driver for the NA climate.

It isn't the only driver. In the Eastern U.S., at least, there are many drivers, not the least of which are the Gulf of Mexico, Canadian/Arctic fronts, and the Atlantic Ocean. And lets not forget lake effects (I.e., referring to how the Great lakes affects the Midwest climate).

Very good! Nowhere do you mention man as a proximal cause. Maybe you're finally learning something!

I didn't have to because we weren't talking about that. But since you brought it up, what, exactly, if anything, do you believe that pumping 30+ billion tons of ghgs each year into the atmosphere does to the global climate system? Anything at all? Do you believe it is somehow inert despite all the evidence to the contrary?

Not too much to be perfectly honest. Man contributes less than 5% of the total global CO2 content. The absurd fallacy that that is the camel that broke the straws back (yes, I know...it's a joke) has now been shown to be an absolute crock.

 

[SSDD]

So now the newest excuse for "the pause" is the pacific ocean.....sounds good....well, at least until the next excuse.


I hear the Atlantic Ocean is to blame, it refuses to buy a hybrid! The Indian Ocean is even worse! It's a flat out DENIER!!

I think its' all Bush's fault.

 

[SSDD]

I didn't have to because we weren't talking about that. But since you brought it up, what, exactly, if anything, do you believe that pumping 30+ billion tons of ghgs each year into the atmosphere does to the global climate system? Anything at all? Do you believe it is somehow inert despite all the evidence to the contrary?

It does nothing at all to the global climate system...hell it isn't even enough to unbalance the natural variation in the earth's natural sources of CO2 from year to year.

 

[orogenicman]

You said "the convection system that starts with the Pacific Ocean", and so I naturally assumed you were referring to ocean currents. If you wanted to discuss the Polar Vortex, perhaps you should have been more specific. But more to the point, you seemed to be arguing that North America, which, by your own admission plays a larger role in global warming than some here will admit while simultaneously downplaying the role of the Pacific. And then you seem to reverse your argument. What's up with that? Perhaps you should rephrase your argument so that it actually makes sense.

But I will admit that North America does play a large role in AGW, since that is where a huge percentage of the manmade ghgs originate.

I completely agree that the Pacific ocean is the driver for the NA climate.

It isn't the only driver. In the Eastern U.S., at least, there are many drivers, not the least of which are the Gulf of Mexico, Canadian/Arctic fronts, and the Atlantic Ocean. And lets not forget lake effects (I.e., referring to how the Great lakes affects the Midwest climate).

Very good! Nowhere do you mention man as a proximal cause. Maybe you're finally learning something!

I didn't have to because we weren't talking about that. But since you brought it up, what, exactly, if anything, do you believe that pumping 30+ billion tons of ghgs each year into the atmosphere does to the global climate system? Anything at all? Do you believe it is somehow inert despite all the evidence to the contrary?

Not too much to be perfectly honest. Man contributes less than 5% of the total global CO2 content. The absurd fallacy that that is the camel that broke the straws back (yes, I know...it's a joke) has now been shown to be an absolute crock.

Contributed 5%? CO2 concentrations before the industrial revolution was 280ppm. Now it hovers around 400ppm, mostly, if not entirely, from human-derived sources. That is considerably more than 5%.

 

[orogenicman]

I didn't have to because we weren't talking about that. But since you brought it up, what, exactly, if anything, do you believe that pumping 30+ billion tons of ghgs each year into the atmosphere does to the global climate system? Anything at all? Do you believe it is somehow inert despite all the evidence to the contrary?

It does nothing at all to the global climate system...hell it isn't even enough to unbalance the natural variation in the earth's natural sources of CO2 from year to year.

CO2 concentration before the industrial revolution = 280ppm
CO2 concentration today ~400ppm.

Yet it does nothing.

Wishful thinking.

 

[westwall]

I completely agree that the Pacific ocean is the driver for the NA climate.

It isn't the only driver. In the Eastern U.S., at least, there are many drivers, not the least of which are the Gulf of Mexico, Canadian/Arctic fronts, and the Atlantic Ocean. And lets not forget lake effects (I.e., referring to how the Great lakes affects the Midwest climate).

Very good! Nowhere do you mention man as a proximal cause. Maybe you're finally learning something!

I didn't have to because we weren't talking about that. But since you brought it up, what, exactly, if anything, do you believe that pumping 30+ billion tons of ghgs each year into the atmosphere does to the global climate system? Anything at all? Do you believe it is somehow inert despite all the evidence to the contrary?

Not too much to be perfectly honest. Man contributes less than 5% of the total global CO2 content. The absurd fallacy that that is the camel that broke the straws back (yes, I know...it's a joke) has now been shown to be an absolute crock.

Contributed 5%? CO2 concentrations before the industrial revolution was 280ppm. Now it hovers around 400ppm, mostly, if not entirely, from human-derived sources. That is considerably more than 5%.

Yes, and the overwhelming majority of that is natural. Funny how you can't seem to grasp that fact.

Here's the official US government table on it and lookey here, they say man is only responsible for around 3 percent. Looks like you lose yet again...


http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/archive/gg04rpt/pdf/tbl3.pdf

 

[westwall]

I didn't have to because we weren't talking about that. But since you brought it up, what, exactly, if anything, do you believe that pumping 30+ billion tons of ghgs each year into the atmosphere does to the global climate system? Anything at all? Do you believe it is somehow inert despite all the evidence to the contrary?

It does nothing at all to the global climate system...hell it isn't even enough to unbalance the natural variation in the earth's natural sources of CO2 from year to year.

CO2 concentration before the industrial revolution = 280ppm
CO2 concentration today ~400ppm.

Yet it does nothing.

Wishful thinking.

Absolutely correct save for one thing. Plants are growing better now. In fact the Sahara is getting greener even as we speak.....


Sahara Desert Greening Due to Climate Change?

Sahara Desert Greening Due to Climate Change

 

[orogenicman]

It isn't the only driver. In the Eastern U.S., at least, there are many drivers, not the least of which are the Gulf of Mexico, Canadian/Arctic fronts, and the Atlantic Ocean. And lets not forget lake effects (I.e., referring to how the Great lakes affects the Midwest climate).

Very good! Nowhere do you mention man as a proximal cause. Maybe you're finally learning something!

I didn't have to because we weren't talking about that. But since you brought it up, what, exactly, if anything, do you believe that pumping 30+ billion tons of ghgs each year into the atmosphere does to the global climate system? Anything at all? Do you believe it is somehow inert despite all the evidence to the contrary?

Not too much to be perfectly honest. Man contributes less than 5% of the total global CO2 content. The absurd fallacy that that is the camel that broke the straws back (yes, I know...it's a joke) has now been shown to be an absolute crock.

Contributed 5%? CO2 concentrations before the industrial revolution was 280ppm. Now it hovers around 400ppm, mostly, if not entirely, from human-derived sources. That is considerably more than 5%.

Yes, and the overwhelming majority of that is natural. Funny how you can't seem to grasp that fact.

Here's the official US government table on it and lookey here, they say man is only responsible for around 3 percent. Looks like you lose yet again...


http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/archive/gg04rpt/pdf/tbl3.pdf

Yeah, funny how I don't have a tendency to lie to myself or anyone else. Your table refers to concentrations over the course of one decade, and says nothing about the cumulative effect, as opposed to the entire span of the industrial revolution, which was my point. Don't count your elephants before they 'hatch'. As for it being natural, perhaps you can point to the database that you've compiled that demonstrates what natural source has been emitting easily identifiable manmade CO2 emissions since the beginning of the industrial revolution. (this should be interesting)

 

[Crick]

When it is known that 42% of the CO2 in the atmosphere today is of human origin, what do you hope to accomplish by pointing out that it has taken many years to attain that level?

You know this seriously refutes your frequent contention that the atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is shorter than mainstream science believes it to be.

 

[jc456]

Are you telling me that a Polar Vortex isn't due to the warm water in the Pacific? Hmmm, I'd think you'd know that, like it is responsible for an EL Nino. Right? Hmmm how does it do that and which way does it force the winds to blow?

You said "the convection system that starts with the Pacific Ocean", and so I naturally assumed you were referring to ocean currents. If you wanted to discuss the Polar Vortex, perhaps you should have been more specific. But more to the point, you seemed to be arguing that North America, which, by your own admission plays a larger role in global warming than some here will admit while simultaneously downplaying the role of the Pacific. And then you seem to reverse your argument. What's up with that? Perhaps you should rephrase your argument so that it actually makes sense.

But I will admit that North America does play a large role in AGW, since that is where a huge percentage of the manmade ghgs originate.

I completely agree that the Pacific ocean is the driver for the NA climate.

It isn't the only driver. In the Eastern U.S., at least, there are many drivers, not the least of which are the Gulf of Mexico, Canadian/Arctic fronts, and the Atlantic Ocean. And lets not forget lake effects (I.e., referring to how the Great lakes affects the Midwest climate).

Very good! Nowhere do you mention man as a proximal cause. Maybe you're finally learning something!

I didn't have to because we weren't talking about that. But since you brought it up, what, exactly, if anything, do you believe that pumping 30+ billion tons of ghgs each year into the atmosphere does to the global climate system? Anything at all? Do you believe it is somehow inert despite all the evidence to the contrary?

Dude you still have no evidence give me evidence. you want to keep writing you have evidence, then show it

 

[jc456]

I completely agree that the Pacific ocean is the driver for the NA climate.

It isn't the only driver. In the Eastern U.S., at least, there are many drivers, not the least of which are the Gulf of Mexico, Canadian/Arctic fronts, and the Atlantic Ocean. And lets not forget lake effects (I.e., referring to how the Great lakes affects the Midwest climate).

Very good! Nowhere do you mention man as a proximal cause. Maybe you're finally learning something!

I didn't have to because we weren't talking about that. But since you brought it up, what, exactly, if anything, do you believe that pumping 30+ billion tons of ghgs each year into the atmosphere does to the global climate system? Anything at all? Do you believe it is somehow inert despite all the evidence to the contrary?

Not too much to be perfectly honest. Man contributes less than 5% of the total global CO2 content. The absurd fallacy that that is the camel that broke the straws back (yes, I know...it's a joke) has now been shown to be an absolute crock.

Contributed 5%? CO2 concentrations before the industrial revolution was 280ppm. Now it hovers around 400ppm, mostly, if not entirely, from human-derived sources. That is considerably more than 5%.

I think they call that bullshit

 

[jc456]

I didn't have to because we weren't talking about that. But since you brought it up, what, exactly, if anything, do you believe that pumping 30+ billion tons of ghgs each year into the atmosphere does to the global climate system? Anything at all? Do you believe it is somehow inert despite all the evidence to the contrary?

It does nothing at all to the global climate system...hell it isn't even enough to unbalance the natural variation in the earth's natural sources of CO2 from year to year.

CO2 concentration before the industrial revolution = 280ppm
CO2 concentration today ~400ppm.

Yet it does nothing.

Wishful thinking.

Exactly

 

[westwall]

When it is known that 42% of the CO2 in the atmosphere today is of human origin, what do you hope to accomplish by pointing out that it has taken many years to attain that level?

You know this seriously refutes your frequent contention that the atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is shorter than mainstream science believes it to be.

How exactly did you show that? There is no evidence at all that supports that contention.

 

[skookerasbil]

Gallup Concern About Environment Down Americans Worry Least About Global Warming CNS News

Noooooooooooooooooobody caaaaaaaaaaaaaaaares!!!!!!


[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/ufo_crash_lg_wht.gif.html][/URL]

 

[orogenicman]

It isn't the only driver. In the Eastern U.S., at least, there are many drivers, not the least of which are the Gulf of Mexico, Canadian/Arctic fronts, and the Atlantic Ocean. And lets not forget lake effects (I.e., referring to how the Great lakes affects the Midwest climate).

Very good! Nowhere do you mention man as a proximal cause. Maybe you're finally learning something!

I didn't have to because we weren't talking about that. But since you brought it up, what, exactly, if anything, do you believe that pumping 30+ billion tons of ghgs each year into the atmosphere does to the global climate system? Anything at all? Do you believe it is somehow inert despite all the evidence to the contrary?

Not too much to be perfectly honest. Man contributes less than 5% of the total global CO2 content. The absurd fallacy that that is the camel that broke the straws back (yes, I know...it's a joke) has now been shown to be an absolute crock.

Contributed 5%? CO2 concentrations before the industrial revolution was 280ppm. Now it hovers around 400ppm, mostly, if not entirely, from human-derived sources. That is considerably more than 5%.

I think they call that bullshit

Prove it.

 

[westwall]

Very good! Nowhere do you mention man as a proximal cause. Maybe you're finally learning something!

I didn't have to because we weren't talking about that. But since you brought it up, what, exactly, if anything, do you believe that pumping 30+ billion tons of ghgs each year into the atmosphere does to the global climate system? Anything at all? Do you believe it is somehow inert despite all the evidence to the contrary?

Not too much to be perfectly honest. Man contributes less than 5% of the total global CO2 content. The absurd fallacy that that is the camel that broke the straws back (yes, I know...it's a joke) has now been shown to be an absolute crock.

Contributed 5%? CO2 concentrations before the industrial revolution was 280ppm. Now it hovers around 400ppm, mostly, if not entirely, from human-derived sources. That is considerably more than 5%.

I think they call that bullshit

Prove it.

You prove it for him everytime you post one of your silly links. Put another way, you claimed that CO2 adjusted the knob. Now, after 18 years of ever rising CO2 levels and static global temps it is now known beyond doubt that that is not true.

 

[orogenicman]

I didn't have to because we weren't talking about that. But since you brought it up, what, exactly, if anything, do you believe that pumping 30+ billion tons of ghgs each year into the atmosphere does to the global climate system? Anything at all? Do you believe it is somehow inert despite all the evidence to the contrary?

Not too much to be perfectly honest. Man contributes less than 5% of the total global CO2 content. The absurd fallacy that that is the camel that broke the straws back (yes, I know...it's a joke) has now been shown to be an absolute crock.

Contributed 5%? CO2 concentrations before the industrial revolution was 280ppm. Now it hovers around 400ppm, mostly, if not entirely, from human-derived sources. That is considerably more than 5%.

I think they call that bullshit

Prove it.

You prove it for him everytime you post one of your silly links. Put another way, you claimed that CO2 adjusted the knob. Now, after 18 years of ever rising CO2 levels and static global temps it is now known beyond doubt that that is not true.

Wishful thinking. 14 of the last 15 years have seen record high global temperatures. Global warming has not gone away. Variations in weather patterns is not evidence that it isn't occurring because it most certainly is. Now, if he won't prove his claim, why don't you take a stab at it? Good luck with that.